March 15, 2008

No matter who the Democrats nominate for President this summer, they will run one of the dirtiest campaigns we’ve ever seen. They’ll have to.

Now, we’ll hear a lot of “Yeah, but the Republicans…” justifications from the media and others on the Left, while others ignore the nastiness of the charges and focus on less egregious (and more accurate, charges from Republicans that are supposedly unconscionable, but make no mistake: there will be a great deal of vitriol spewed by the Democrats and their allies in the media and the Left. There’s no other way to win.

The longer this split between Hillary and Obama continues, the deeper and angrier the division in the Democrat party gets. We’re already seeing posters on the Daily Kos calling for background investigations of those daring to support Hillary. Note that they’re not worried about finding skeletons in the closet of candidates; they’re trying to embarrass those who support other candidates:

…I will note that one of my fellow Kossaks (someone with whom I thought I could agree to disagree) went so far as to suggest that others try to dig up real life information on the pro-Hillary members of our community. To what end? Was his aim to find enough information on us to try to get us fired from our jobs and leave our families homeless – or worse? Suggesting that they dig up real life information on us is the lowest form of intimidation and goes way beyond the limits of all things civil and reasonable. It’s nothing more than the worst form of thuggish, hateful and intimidating behavior toward other members of our community.

This isn’t the only sign we’ve seen that the division in the Democrat party may be irreconcilable by November. See here on a liberal blog:

A recent PEW poll shows that 10% of Democrats who support Obama would defect and vote for McCain should Hillary become the candidate. But, a whopping 25% of Democrats who support Hillary would defect and vote for McCain should Obama become the candidate.

I have little doubt that 25% is higher than will actually defect come November. (Keep in mind, though, that this was before the information about Obama’s pastor and his direction of an earmark to the hospital that employed his wife came out, so this is still when he was viewed as fairly “clean,” whereas now he can be seen at least as sympathetic to America-haters and corruption.) Meanwhile, 10% of Obama supporters say they will vote for McCain over Hillary. Again that number is likely high. But even if they don’t cross party lines in November, they may skip the presidential ballot or stay home entirely, hurting the entire Democratic ticket.

Facing that scary possibility, (well, scary for the Democrats) the Left will have no choice to to attempt to frighten their base to motivate them to turn out. All sorts of charges will be thrown against McCain and the GOP this fall, as the Left sees their chance at winning the Presidency slipping away. They’ll make all sorts of insane charges that McCain is corrupt (when he’s one of the more honest politicians out there), that’s he’s a radical right-winger who wants to starve children and kill the homeless (he’s not a right-winger, as conservative opposition to him should shows, and even if he were, it’s not true that any true conservative would want to starve children or kill the homeless), that he’s a fascist (when it’s clearly liberals who are more fascist).

There will all sorts of unfounded, unjustified attacks as the Left sees their chances for the Presidency slip away this fall. Don’t believe them: they’re just the desperate lies of those who would seek power no matter the cost and see it falling away from them.

January 10, 2008

Some are complaining that the vote in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary was rigged, largely on the basis of the discrepancy between the polls taken before the election and the actual results. This is similar to the claim that the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio was rigged since the exit polls showed Kerry winning, while the actual vote totals gave the state to Bush.

Facts can be stubborn things, but mere facts won’t let some people get in the way of denying reality. Convinced Obama was about to gain a historic victory that would defeat the Clinton machine once and for all, some were naturally disappointed when that didn’t happen. (Part of me is, another part is excited to watch what could be an exciting primary season.) Polls are notoriously unreliable. Every poll comes with a built-in margin of error to begin, plus the accuracy of a poll depends on its sample. To use a local example, a survey of likely Delaware voters with an disproportionate amount of Wilmington voters would give much different results than one with a disproportionate amount of Sussex County voters, and neither would probably match up well with the results of a good poll taken with a truly representative sample.

The exit polls were so wrong because they grossly understated the female vote in New Hampshire. Had the turnout of women there, which constituted an unprecedented 57 percent of the actual Democratic vote, been plugged in to exit interviews, a 2-percentage point Clinton victory would have been forecast.

So, the poll results were not in line because of an atypical voting pattern that was hard to foresee. No conspiracy, no nefarious plot, just unusual circumstances. So why are so many on the Left so eager to cry foul? Why so little regard for the actual will of the voters as compared the the (mistakenly) assumed will of the voters? (Both in New Hampshire this year, and Ohio in 2004.) I think it’s the same action that causes the Left to react so negatively to Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism. (Example 1. Example 2.)

I can’t decide if it’s arrogance or insecurity that drives these reactions. Arrogance that anyone would dare question or disagree with them or an insecurity that maybe the Left is wrong and afraid to face it deep down inside, so they lash out rather than question their own beliefs. Either way, this continued refusal to accept ideas and results that don’t agree with doesn’t speak well either for those on the Left who react this way or their future.

WILMINGTON, DE – According to a two-day survey of more than 500 registered voters, there is a tight race between Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson for the GOP Presidential nomination in Delaware.

“With the 2008 Delaware Presidetial Primary less than a year away, I thought it would be helpful to start getting a feel for where Delaware voters stand on the candidates,” said Thomas S. Ross, Chair of the Wilmington Republican Region. “We plan to continue tracking with similar surveys on a regular basis in the coming months.”

The Presidential Poll was conducted via e-mail between June 19, 2007 and June 21, 2007 with more than 500 respondents. The Majority of respondents are registered Republicans in Delaware, some Democrats, Independents, and those rigistered with other parties also participated.Respondents were given a choice of candidates in alphabetical order. The candidate list includes all registered Republicans who have announced their candidacy for the Presidency as well as those who have formed exploritory committees. Not included were those individuals who have publicly stated they will not run for President in the 2008 election.The following are the results of the first Delaware Presidential Primary Poll:All Respondents

February 14, 2007

Despite the claims of some that it was only nutty conservatives who were offended by the rantings of Edwards’ bloggers, neither are with the campaign any more. While both were said to have resigned, that’s often a euphemism for fired. Especially when the “resignations” come after the persons in question were the source of a great deal of controversy.

I’m not sure Edwards deserves much credit for doing the right thing in this case, though, since he was so clearly trying to have it both ways: make the Left netroots happy my making a statement in favor of the bloggers, but then try to please Catholics by getting the people off his staff. A craven political act.

February 9, 2007

“We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition [between Democrats and religious Christians] and something like this sets it back,” said Brian O’Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O’Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. “It’s not only wrong morally – it’s stupid politically.”

O’Dwyer e-mailed a statement to reporters saying: “Senator Edwards is condoning bigotry by keeping the two bloggers on his staff. Playing to the cheap seats with anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party.”
…
Thursday, the campaign issued a statement from Edwards saying that he had been personally offended by the remarks and that the bloggers “have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word.”

The campaign also sent out semi-apologetic statements from each blogger saying she was sorry if anyone was offended.
…
“I thought his explanation was not satisfying,” said Cornell’s Penalver. “It’s obvious that they did mean to give offense.”

Edwards is kidding himself if he thinks that he can keep both serious Catholics and the bloggers. It is disappointing to read, though, that some liberal Catholic are avoiding this battle because of discomfort with Catholic League President William Donahue. He’s not my first choice of messenger, either, but he’s right on this one and all Catholics are harmed by anti-Catholic bigotry. Faith has to come first, not politics and those liberals are putting their politics first.

February 8, 2007

I wasn’t going to blog on this, figuring that once it came to his attention what these people had written he’d do the right thing and disassociate with them. Since Edwards refused to take the obvious step, I’m blogging.

“I talked personally to the two women who were involved. They gave me their word they, under no circumstances, intended to denigrate any church or anybody’s religion and offered their apologies for anything that indicated otherwise. I took them at their word,” Edwards told reporters.
…
“It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way,” McEwen’s statement said.

Marcotte’s statement said her writings on religion on her blog, Pandagon, are generally satirical criticisms of public policies and politics.

“My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics,” Marcotte said. “Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”

Here’s some of what they wrote:

Marcotte:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology. (Source)

More Marcotte:

There’s a pragmatic reason that the Vatican might be a little hesitant to come right out and say that there’s no limbo (definition here, for those who don’t know much about Catholicism) is because the concept is wielded by everyday Catholics to explain where the souls of unborn babies go, which is just an extra way to guilt trip women who have abortions. But it’s sort of a balancing act, as far as I can tell, because as most people understand it, unbaptized children go to limbo but when Jesus returns, they all get to go to heaven. So it’s a way to guilt trip women who have abortions without casting god as such an uncruel monster as to throw souls into hell that never even had a shot at sinning. So that’s limbo: it sucks enough to make women feel guilty about abortion, but it doesn’t suck so much as to run people off.

I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say there’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that it’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.

Which all brings me to recommending this great post by Austin Cline at Jesus’ General about why authoritarian types are so damn interested in cobbling people’s sex lives and meddling around in people’s private sexual decisions, like in this case why the Catholic church is so interested in making sure that people can’t make the perfectly sound decision to limit their family size while enjoying a healthy sex life—either you’re going to have to forgo birth control or you’re going to have to feel guilty to the point where you fear you’re casting babies into hellfire, by their standards. It’s a way to disrupt people’s lives so the church can get more control. (Source)

Still more:

The problem with Rick Santorum is that every time he talks about sex, that little part of all of us that wants to run into a preschool and yell “f**kslut” or go to a born-again church and scream about how God loves to come in our backyards for our milkshakes, well, it just grows a hundredfold, and the restraint that most of us show just flies out the window. As a Senator, however, Santorum finds himself frequently faced with many of the most pressing issues of penis insertion that have ever faced America—and so he must speak, lest his lack of self-control be manifested by f**king his desk on the Senate floor. (There’s a knothole that’s just the right size, y’know.) The problem with Rick Santorum is that every time he talks about sex, that little part of all of us that wants to run into a preschool and yell “f**kslut” or go to a born-again church and scream about how God loves to come in our backyards for our milkshakes, well, it just grows a hundredfold, and the restraint that most of us show just flies out the window. As a Senator, however, Santorum finds himself frequently faced with many of the most pressing issues of penis insertion that have ever faced America—and so he must speak, lest his lack of self-control be manifested by f**king his desk on the Senate floor. (There’s a knothole that’s just the right size, y’know.) (Source)

And again:

One thing I vow here and now—you motherf**kers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f**k without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf**kers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now. (Source)

No. Can’t imagine why anyone would be offended by that. These couldn’t possibly have been intended to give offense. No possible way.

There are many Catholics who disagree with Church teachings, but they still don’t want the Catholic Church spoken of this way. This will be passed around in every Catholic Church in America. (And many Protestants won’t be happy about the attacks on religion either.) If Edwards wins the nomination, I think the GOP will have been handed the White House again due to his own incompetence.

January 30, 2007

Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia’s dutiful apprentice, blindly following his mentor’s lead. It’s a grossly inaccurate portrayal, imbued with politically incorrect innuendo, as documents and notes from Justice Thomas’s very first days on the court conclusively show. Far from being a Scalia lackey, the rookie jurist made clear to the other justices that he was willing to be the solo dissenter, sending a strong signal that he would not moderate his opinions for the sake of comity. By his second week on the bench, he was staking out bold positions in the private conferences where justices vote on cases. If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around.
…
Consider a criminal case argued during Justice Thomas’s first week. It concerned a thief’s effort to get out of a Louisiana mental institution and the state’s desire to keep him there. Eight justices voted to side with the thief. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that although it “may make eminent sense as a policy matter” to let the criminal out of the mental institution, nothing in the Constitution required “the states to conform to the policy preferences of federal judges.”

After he sent his dissenting opinion to the other justices, as is custom, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy changed their votes. The case ended up 5-4.

The false notion, likely based in the Left’s racist views, that Thomas is unintelligent will likely never go away. He’s long been my favorite Supreme Court Justice, he and I sharing a stronger respect for originalism than Scalia. Hopefully articles like this will at least start the process of opening people’s minds to him.

That reminded me of comments talk radio host, Mark Levin, made about Biden on Friday in response to a caller’s question. Click the speaker below to listen.

People who don’t know what they’re talking about tend to talk too much. That is obviously the case with Biden!

The Mark Levin Show is nationally syndicated on over 90 stations. Starting on February 12th, Mark’s show will be broadcast on WILM in Wilmington weeknights from 10-12. Live streaming audio can be heard from 6-8 pm on Mark Levin’s official website.